Background - Defendant Lance Touchstone subpoenaed the private and public contents of the victim's Facebook account (messages, posts, photos, location, etc.) seeking potential exculpatory evidence. - Facebook moved to quash, citing the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) which generally prohibits providers from disclosing the contents of electronic communications. - The trial court denied Facebook's motion and ordered Facebook to produce the account for in camera review; Facebook petitioned for a writ to quash that order. - Defense counsel said the victim was not serving subpoenas and the prosecutor refused to get a warrant; Facebook said the defense could obtain the material from the victim, recipients, or via a government search warrant. - The appellate court stayed the production order, requested supplemental briefing on federal supremacy, possible compelled consent by account holders/recipients, and spoliation protections, and ultimately granted the writ. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Touchstone) | Defendant's Argument (Facebook) | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Whether the SCA permits providers to divulge private account contents in response to a defendant's subpoena | Touchstone: His constitutional rights (due process, confrontation, compulsory process, effective assistance) require access; in camera review should be allowed | Facebook: SCA bars voluntary disclosure of contents; defendant must obtain consent from account holder/recipient or seek warrant through government | Held: SCA bars provider disclosure; constitutional claims do not overcome SCA; trial court order must be vacated | | Whether the supremacy clause prevents enforcing a state-court order that would compel an SCA violation | Touchstone: State discovery should permit compelled production for fair trial | Facebook: Federal law (SCA) preempts and forbids state enforcement that compels disclosure | Held: Supremacy clause bars enforcing state order that would force provider to violate SCA; quash required | | Whether the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause requires pretrial access to third‑party privileged/controlled records | Touchstone: Confrontation and cross-examination rights require pretrial access to materials needed to impeach/defend | Facebook: No general right to discovery; Hammon and related authority limit pretrial compelled disclosure of privileged/third-party records | Held: Confrontation does not mandate pretrial disclosure of SCA‑protected materials; Hammon and precedent control | | Whether due process/compulsory process require a mechanism in the SCA for defendants to obtain provider-held content | Touchstone: Due process and compulsory process require parity with government access; SCA must yield or provide a mechanism | Facebook: Criminal defendants lack the procedural powers of government; SCA provides other routes (account-holder consent, recipients, government warrant); parity is not required | Held: Due process/compulsory process do not render the SCA unconstitutional; defendant can seek materials from account holder, recipients, or via trial‑stage in camera procedures or government process | ### Key Cases Cited Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) (no general constitutional right to pretrial discovery in criminal cases) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence) Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause outlines limits on admitting out‑of‑court testimonial statements) Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (due process may require in camera review of privileged child‑protection files by trial court) Hammon, People v., 15 Cal.4th 1117 (1997) (state does not authorize broad pretrial disclosure of privileged third‑party records; in camera trial‑stage balancing may be required) Juror Number One v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 854 (2012) (SCA protections and limits on compelled disclosure; court may order witness to consent) Negro v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.4th 879 (2014) (state discovery cannot be enforced to compel disclosures that would violate the SCA) O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423 (2006) (subpoenas that would force providers to violate the SCA are unenforceable)